Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Multicultural conflicts pervade our world and have sparked considerable
debate about their possible resolution. We argue that how culture is
conceptualized is crucial to the continued dialogue about multicultural
conflicts. Specifically, we argue that approaches that argue for the protection
of cultures run into significant problems if they do not employ a conception of
cultures as delineated entities. However, we also hold that the notion that
cultures cannot be distinct in any way, does very little to contribute to
dialogue. From the very beginning, it excludes the notion of a culture that is to
be protected and thus stops the dialogue there and then. To be true to the
principle of audi ad alteram partem, approaches to multicultural conflicts must
conceive of an alternative model, provided that such a model is logically
possible. This may provide the dialogue with a much needed point of common
understanding from which to proceed. Accordingly, we develop a model of
culture whereby it is possible to delineate cultures. In this model, a culture can
be delineable in a manner analogous to how we delineate persons. Our model
of personal delineation suggests a dual structure whereby a trivial personal
boundary contains a unity of conflict within the person. In persons, this unity of
conflict lies in the relationship between the “I” and repressed meanings. This
relationship must be characterised by self-referential decisions and the
capacity to make self-referential decisions is central to our definition of
personal autonomy. In cultures, we argue that multicultural conflicts provide
the necessary conditions that enable us to conceptualize trivial boundaries in
cultures in terms of the communicative relationships between members of a
particular culture. Multicultural conflicts prompt self-categorizations by
individuals and such self-categorizations are made in terms of group
membership. Though all members may not agree as to who belongs to the
culture and who does not, the claims made about membership serve to
differentiate the communicative relationships inside the culture from those
outside it. Furthermore, we show that, inside this trivial boundary, a unity of
conflict analogous to the one found in personal autonomy, can be exhibited by
cultures. We show how a culture, through its institutions, particularly through an institutionalised exit possibility, 1) may exhibit self-reference and 2) relate
to a source of authority in the same way as a person does when making selfreferential
decisions. In this regard, we argue that institutionalised exit
possibilities embody adherence to the consensus vs. power criterion,
according to which the dominant account of a culture is achieved through
consensus, as opposed to through the exertion of power. Furthermore, we
argue that with a strong analogy between cultures’ and personal delineation, it
becomes reasonable to extend concepts we usually apply to persons, such as
fairness, attachment and viability, so that they can also apply to cultures. We
show that the application of these concepts clarifies certain current
multicultural issues. The application of theses concepts also leads to the
development of a decision making process to deal with multicultural issues. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Multikulturele konflikte kom wêreldwyd voor en het reeds aansienlike debat
oor die resolusie van sodanige konflik ontlok. Ons voer aan dat hoe kultuur
gekonseptualiseer word, besonder belangrik is vir die voorgesette dialoog oor
multikulturele konflikte. Meer spesifiek voer ons aan dat benaderings wat vir
die beskerming van kulture argumenteer, beduidende probleme ondervind
indien dit nie `n konsepsie van kulture as delinieerbare entiteite gebruik nie.
Die gedagte dat kulture nie op enige manier afgebaken kan word nie, dra
egter ook weinig by tot dialoog. Dit sluit van meet af die gedagte dat kulture
beskerm moet word, uit en staak dus die dialoog daar en dan. Ten einde
getrou te wees aan die beginsel van audi ad alteram partem, moet
benaderings tot multikulturele konflik `n alternatiewe model van kultuur
bedink, mits so `n model logies moontlik is. So `n model kan die dialoog van
`n broodnodige gemeenskaplike uitgangspunt voorsien. Ons ontwikkel
dienooreenkomstig `n model van kultuur waarvolgens dit moontlik is om
kulture te delinieer. Volgens hierdie model kan `n kultuur delinieer word in
analogie met hoe persone delinieer word. Ons model van persoonlike
deliniëring stel `n tweeledige struktuur voor, waarvolgens `n triviale
persoonlike grens `n eenheid van konflik binne die persoon omspan. In
persone lê hierdie eenheid van konflik in die verhouding tussen die “ek” en
onderdrukte betekenisse. Hierdie verhouding moet deur self-referensiële
besluite gekenmerk word. Die vermoë tot self-referensiële besluite, so voer
ons aan, is ook die sentrale kenmerk van persoonlike outonomie. Ons voer
aan dat multikulturele konflikte die noodsaaklike toestande skep wat ons in
staat stel om triviale grense in kulture te definieer in terme van die
kommunikatiewe verhoudings tussen lede van `n spesifieke kultuur.
Multikulturele konflikte ontlok self-kategorisering deur individue en sodanige
kategorisering word in terme van groeplidmaatskap gedoen. Hoewel alle lede
van die kultuur nie noodwendig saamstem oor wie aan die kultuur behoort en
wie nie, maak die bewerings wat oor lidmaatskap gemaak word dit moontlik
om die kommunikatiewe verhoudings binne die kultuur te onderskei van dié
buite die kultuur. Verder demonstreer ons dat, binne hierdie triviale grens, kulture `n eenheid van konflik ten toon kan stel wat soortgelyk aan die
eenheid van konflik by persoonlike outonomie is. Ons wys hoe `n kultuur, deur
sy instellings, en vernaam deur `n geïnstitusionaliseerde uitgangsmoontlikheid
(‘exit possibility’) 1) self-referensie ten toon kan stel en 2) in verhouding met `n
bron van gesag kan staan soos `n persoon wanneer s/hy self-referensiële
besluite maak. In dié verband voer ons aan dat geïnstitusionaliseerde
uitgangsmoontlikhede die beliggaming is van die nakoming van die
konsensus vs. mag-kriterium, waarvolgens die dominante weergawe van `n
kultuur bereik word deur konsensus, teenoor deur die uitoefen van mag.
Verder voer ons aan dat `n sterk analogie tussen kulture en persone se
deliniëring dit moontlik maak om begrippe soos regverdigheid, binding en
lewensvatbaarheid, wat gewoonlik op persone toegepas word, op kulture toe
te pas. Die toepassing van hierdie begrippe verbeter ons begrip van sekere
huidige multikulturele kwessies en lei ook tot die ontwikkeling van `n
besluitnemingsproses vir multikulturele kwessies.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/85680 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Niemand, Johannes R. |
| Contributors | Van Niekerk, Anton A., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en_ZA |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Format | viii, 227 p. |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds